After refusing to hear a number of Indian law disputes,
the U.S. Supreme Court last Friday accepted a case
that tests the limits of tribal jurisdiction.

The case involves a non-Indian bank and an Indian couple from the Cheyenne River
Sioux Reservation.
Plains Commerce Bank says it doesn't have to answer to a breach of
contract and discrimination
lawsuit filed in tribal court by Ronnie and Lila Long, who own
a cattle operation.

In most situations, that would be true.
Tribes, in general, lack jurisdiction over non-Indians
except in certain conditions outlined in Montana v. US,
a Supreme Court case from 1981.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals last June ruled that
the conditions were satisfied in the case.
The bank established a consensual relationship with the Longs and the bank's
conduct can be regulated by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe's government, the three-judge panel said
in a unanimous ruling.

"Because the bank not only transacted with a corporation of conspicuous tribal
character, but also formed concrete commercial relationships with the Indian
owners of that corporation, we conclude that it engaged in the kind of
consensual relationship contemplated by Montana," Judge Diana E. Murphy
wrote for the majority.

The decision marked one of the rare occasions in which
a tribal court lawsuit has survived the Montana test.
Tribal advocates have noted it is very difficult to meet
the Supreme Court's high bar.

The justices will now get a chance to revisit its seminal
ruling with the Plains Commerce case.
The bank's opening brief is due February 12, with a response
from the Longs due a month after that.

The case is being watched closely
by the Native American Rights Fund and the National Congress
of American Indians.
The two organizations, through their joint Supreme Court Project,
monitor Indian law litigation
in hopes of preventing a repeat of the disastrous 2001 term,
when tribal interests lost nearly every case that went
before the justices.

Since then, the court has accepted just a handful of Indian law
cases. Only two major rulings -- a land-into-trust
case involving the Oneida Nation of New York and
a taxation dispute between the Prairie
Band Potawatomi Nation and the state of Kansas -- have gone against
tribal interests.

The Supreme Court has been asked to revisit Montana
as recently as 2006.
But the justices turned down a case that affected
a wrongful death lawsuit on the Flathead Reservation in Montana.

In that case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
that the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes could hear
the lawsuit even though it was not filed by a tribal member.
The 9th Circuit, citing Montana, said tribal
interests were directly affected.

As a result of the Salish and Kootenai case,
the 9th Circuit last year revived a lawsuit filed
by members of the Navajo Nation against Ford Motor Company.
The parents of Esther Todecheene, a tribal police officer,
allege Ford manufactured a defective vehicle but Ford
says the Navajo courts lack jurisdiction to hear
the case.

If the Supreme Court upholds the 8th Circuit in the Plains
Commerce case, the bank faces a judgment of nearly
$900,000 in tribal court.